The Academic Plan: Setting the Stage for Teaching and Learning

Time and Change: A Decade of Progress at The Ohio State University

Re-accreditation Self-Study Report for the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools

Spring 2007 THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Oh! Come let’s sing Ohio’s praise,

And songs to Alma Mater raise;

While our hearts rebounding thrill,

With joy which death alone can still.

Summer’s heat or winter’s cold,

The seasons pass, the years will roll;

Time and change will surely show

How firm thy friendship—OHIO!

“Carmen Ohio” Ohio State’s alma mater

TABLE OF CONTENT UMC 07026 CHAPTER ONE ...... 7 Introduction • Institutional Context ...... 8 • Accreditation History ...... 10 • Progress on Recommendations Identified in the 1997 Site Visit...... Team Report ...... 10 • Major Changes Since the 1997 Re-accreditation Review ...... 13 • The Self-Study Process ...... 16 • Making the Case for Accreditation ...... 17

CHAPTER TWO ...... 19 Criterion One: Mission and Integrity Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future • Setting the Stage (Core Component 1a)...... 21 • Understanding, Valuing, and Pursuing our Mission (Core Component 1c) ...... 25 • Recognizing, Respecting, and Appreciating Diversity: Creating a More Diverse University Community (Core Component 1b) ...... 26 • A New System to Address Changing Resource Realities: Budget Restructuring, Capital Planning, and Development (Core Components 2a and 2b) ...... 33 • Preparing for a Future Shaped by Societal and Economic Trends (Core Component 2a) ...... 36 • Using Ongoing Evaluation and Assessment to Inform Strategies for Improvement (Core Component 2c) ...... 39 • Fulfilling the Mission through Strategic Planning (Core Component 2d)...... 40 • Fulfilling the Mission and Planning through Effective and Collaborative Governance (Core Component 1d) ...... 41 • Strategic Activities: An Environment of Innovation and Improvement (Core Components 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d) ...... 46 • Operating with Accountability and Integrity (Core Component 1e) ...... 48 • Reflections and Next Steps...... 50

CHAPTER THREE ...... 53 Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching • The Context ...... 55 • The Academic Plan: Setting the Stage for Teaching and Learning ...... 56 • Using Assessment to Improve Teaching Effectiveness (Core Components 3a and 3d) ...... 57 • Supporting and Valuing Effective Teaching (Core Components 3b and 3d) ...... 66 • Enhancing Student Learning through Student Support, Innovative Instruction, and Unique Learning Environments (Core Components 3c and 3d) ...... 69 • Reflections and Next Steps...... 75 THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY CHAPTER FOUR ...... 79 Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge • The Academic Plan: Setting the Stage for Research and Scholarship ...... 81 • Promoting a Life of Learning through Research and Creative Activities (Core Component 4a) ...... 81 • Promoting a Life of Learning through Professional Development Opportunities for Administrators, Faculty, Staff, and Students (Core Component 4a) ...... 96 • General Education and Major Programs of Study: A Basis for Lifelong Learning in a Diverse Society (Core Components 4b and 4c) ...... 97 • Acquiring, Discovering, and Applying Knowledge Responsibly (Core Component 4d) ...... 98 • Reflections and Next Steps...... 99

CHAPTER FIVE ...... 101 Criterion Five: Engagement and Service • The Academic Plan: Setting the Stage for Outreach and Engagement (Core Components 5b and 5c) ...... 103 • Defining Outreach and Engagement (Core Components 5a and 5b)...... 105 • Integrating Outreach and Engagement into Units and the Student Experience (Core Components 5b and 5c) ...... 107 • Mutually Beneficial Partnerships (Core Components 5a, 5c, and 5d)...... 114 • Shaping Outreach and Engagement in a Global Context (Core Components 5a and 5c) ...... 117 • Evaluating and Reporting Impact as an Engaged Institution (Core Components 5a and 5d) ...... 119 • Reflections and Next Steps...... 122

CHAPTER SIX ...... 125 Special Emphasis Self-Study of Graduate and Post-Baccalaureate Professional Education • Introduction ...... 127 • Graduate and Professional Education: General Features ...... 129 • Committee on Graduate Education ...... 130 • Committee to Review the Graduate School ...... 140 • Campus Responses ...... 147 • Reflections and Next Steps...... 151

TABLE OF CONTENT SUPPLEMENT ...... 153 Federal Compliance • Credits, Program Length, and Tuition ...... 155 • Compliance with Higher Education Reauthorization Act/Title IV ...... 155 Student Complaints, Resources, and Academic Rights ...... and Responsibilities ...... 156 • Additional Information ...... 158

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

Chapter One Introduction

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT The Ohio State University is a public, Carnegie RU/VH (research university, very high activity), land-grant, urban institution. It began in 1870, as the small Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College—Ohio’s response to the Morrill (Land-Grant) Act. Today it is one of the largest, most comprehensive universities in the United States, with: • a 17-member Board of Trustees, responsible for oversight of academic programs, budgets, general administration, and employment of faculty and staff; • 59,000 students (45,000 undergraduate; 10,000 graduate; 3,000 professional); • 3,400 regular faculty (3,000 regular tenure track, 400 regular clinical track, and 25 research track); • 20,000 staff; • 18 academic colleges that include 102 departments/schools; • a full range of undergraduate, graduate, and professional academic programs, offered on a “quarter” calendar; • an annual budget of $3.7 billion (including over $600 million in research expenditures); and • more than 400,000 living alumni. The vast majority of faculty, staff, students, academic programs, and research activity is located at the Columbus campus. It is here that the central administration for the entire university is based and the major university-wide academic, fiscal, and personnel deci- sions are made. From here, most of the interactions with the Ohio General Assembly, various government agencies, and the Ohio Board of Regents occur. With its robust, diversified economy, Columbus is now the central city (population: 700,000) of a seven- county metropolitan region of 1.5 million people. The university has a growing set of partnerships with this metropolitan area. Four regional campuses are located in smaller communities ranging in distance from 40 to 90 miles from Columbus. Included are campuses at Lima, Mansfield, Marion, and Newark, Ohio. Each was founded four decades ago, has between 70 and 110 faculty members (including regular and auxiliary faculty), and between 1,200 and 2,200 primarily undergraduate students. Each is “co-located” with one of Ohio’s public “technical colleges” and shares some physical facilities. Each is an integral part of its local community—a point of pride that results in considerable community support. These campuses have a distinctive niche within the university’s academic structure. They draw heavily, but no longer exclusively, from their surrounding regions for enrollment. They maintain “open admissions” and provide, for many students, an important first step, or gateway, to higher education in general and to this university specifically. Included are recent high school graduates who are first-generation college-goers, as well as adults now starting or returning to complete a college education. Although funded separately by the state, they are integrated with the Columbus campus. • Their curricula include primarily introductory-level university-wide general education courses that are also taught in Columbus, and their students are formally affiliated with, and earn their degrees from, the university. • Their senior administrators and faculty regularly interact with their counter- parts on the Columbus campus.

INTRODUCTION The university began as an agricultural college and today maintains that important, his- torical tradition of service to, and interactions with, the agricultural sector of the state’s economy. This occurs formally through a sixth location, the Agricultural Technical Insti- tute (ATI) in Wooster, Ohio, and its Ohio Agricultural and Research Development Center (OARDC). Through those activities, along with Ohio State University Extension and with the Office of University Outreach and Engagement, the university works directly with the populations in each of the state’s 88 counties—in rural areas, small non-metropolitan communities, and increasingly in major urban centers. Stated simply, The Ohio State University has a presence in virtually every part of Ohio. It is truly a statewide public institution of higher education, very much a part of the modern economy and “culture” of the state. The university is part of a large higher education network serving Ohio’s 11 million citizens and the 400,000+ students in postsecondary education. This includes 36 public institutions (13 universities, 23 community and/or technical colleges) and 50 independent universities and colleges. The nine-member Ohio Board of Regents, based in Columbus, serves as a planning and coordinating agency, primarily for the public institutions. The board works with a staff that currently includes a chancellor and four vice chancellors, who, among other functions: • manage the distribution of state funding for higher education through a primarily enrollment-driven subsidy model; • gather and analyze statewide data on enrollments and programs; • oversee the process for evaluating/approving new academic degree programs; and • administer targeted, competitive initiatives. The university interacts with this board in many ways on a regular basis and, increasingly, interacts with the other higher education institutions, four-year and two-year, on statewide initiatives. However, this university plays a distinctive role. As Ohio’s land-grant university with comprehensive research, instructional, and service missions, it serves the state as well as national and international constituencies. No other university in Ohio holds that designation or has that scope of comprehensiveness and responsibilities. Only one other public university (University of Cincinnati) and one private (Case Western Reserve University) hold Carnegie RU/VH status. As a result, our most frequent linkages are with peer institutions across the country and around the world. For example, the university, notably through its administrative team, is an active participant in national organiza- tions such as the Association of American Universities (AAU), the American Council on Education (ACE), the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), and the International Institute of Education (IIE), among others.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY ACCREDITATION HISTORY The university has been accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA) since 1913. Its first full accreditation site visit by that organization occurred in 1966. The second was in 1977. In both instances the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education voted to continue accreditation at the doctoral degree level. The four regional campuses underwent separate reviews, including site visits, in 1972 and 1982. They were accredited to continue to offer lower-division courses including the degrees of associate of arts and the baccalaureate program in Early and Middle Childhood Education. In 1982 it was decided that, from that point forward, the regional campuses would become part of the full university accreditation review. As a result, the Columbus campus and the regional campuses were included in the accreditation site review in 1987. The university received continued accreditation at the doctoral (research and professional curricula) level at that time. In 1997, the university received a full 10-year re-accreditation, with the need for a “progress report,” in 1999, on student learning outcomes assessment.

PROGRESS ON RECOMMENDATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE 1997 SITE VISIT TEAM REPORT The “progress report” on student learning outcomes assessment was submitted and approved in 1999. Subsequent activity is documented in the discussion of Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching. The site review team also made recommendations in five areas. • “Increased attention to internal communications at all levels, particularly with the staff of the institution.” Effective communication in an institution of this size is important but always a challenge to implement fully. Progress continues to be made on two fronts. First, with growing electronic media, information about institutional initiatives, new polices and procedures, and events is disseminated through several outlets. Examples include: onCampus—a highly respected and used publication (electronic and hard copy editions) for faculty and staff, with four to five issues per quarter; andOSU Today, an electronic bulletin board sent each weekday (twice a week during summer quarter) to all faculty and staff that includes links for relevant follow-up activity. In addition, selected units have their own communication strategies: the Office of Academic Affairs, each quarter, produces Key Notes, and the Office of Human Resources has a set of publications to keep faculty and staff informed of ongoing activities. Each academic and academic support unit has its own web page. A growing number of units on campus have one or more communication staff members, and the university has an Office of University Relations with a specific Internal Communications division. Second, communication occurs through participation in decision making processes. Faculty and students remain involved, formally, through the University Senate. Staff are not members of the senate; however, the chair of the University Staff Advisory Committee (USAC) is a non-voting member of the senate. USAC meets regularly, interacts formally with the university president, executive vice president and provost, senior vice president for business and finance, and associate vice president for human resources, and issues an annual report. Colleges and academic support units typically have a USAC contact person. Staff members are always represented on all special

10 INTRODUCTION committees and task forces as well as senior administrative searches. Nonetheless, the university needs to work continuously on effective communication with staff members. • “Maintaining the selective investment program for enhancement at the university’s centers of excellence.” A hallmark of this university for the past decade, despite leadership change, has been the continued commitment by the Office of the President, the Office of Academic Affairs, and the Office of Research to focus on strong academic programs and invest in them. Increasingly the emphasis has been on interdisciplinary efforts. Rigorous competitive processes were established. In the late 1990s, Academic Enrichment and Selective Investment served as the investment mechanisms. In 2005, the executive vice president and provost established, and in 2006 implemented, Targeted Investments in Excellence. Recently these activities have been linked to related processes initiated through the Ohio Board of Regents. These activities are discussed in more detail in other sections of this report. • “Continued support for the program “Innovation by Substitution,” as illustrated by the many recent restructuring initiatives. In doing so, we suggest planning for increasing numbers of adult and part-time students, and additional consolidations such as the telephone/data system.” Examples from academic support units are outlined under Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future, but for academic units, some restructuring has continued, related increasingly to shifting academic emphases. For example, over the past decade new academic departments have been created: Biomedical Engineering, Aviation, and Urology. At the programmatic level where change is continuous, examples include, at the graduate level in the College of Medicine, the merger of a set of existing programs into the Integrated Biomedical Graduate Program, and at the undergraduate level in the Department of Anthropology, a shift from the B.A. program to the B.S. degree to reflect a shift to physical anthropology. More broadly, the past two years have seen major changes. In 2006, the College of Education and the College of Human Ecology merged to better align their related missions; and the John Glenn School of Public Affairs, a unit reporting directly to the Office of Academic Affairs to help emphasize the importance of public policy activity at the institutional level, was created from a separate School of Public Policy and Management and the John Glenn Institute of Public Service and Public Policy. Early in 2007, the School of Public Health became the first new college in two decades, giving it a status needed to help with its growing national research and instructional stature. With regard to enrollment structure, the numbers of adult and part-time students have not increased substantially on the Columbus campus, but they do remain an important element of enrollment on the regional campuses and are given considerable attention. Instead, there has been growing attention at the state level to articulation and transfer. The university accepts more that 3,000 transfer students each year. The university is heavily involved in ensuring through a state-approved Transfer Module (general education) and Transfer Assurance Guides (undergraduate majors) that students from other public institutions in Ohio (two-year and four-year) may transfer seamlessly and have credit accepted and applied. This process is underway; the university has assumed a leadership role at the state level; and the application of transfer credit will become an increasingly important part of enrollment and student progress. Attention to established, and perhaps new, formal arrangements—notably with two-year community colleges—is likely to need careful planning.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 11 • “Swift implementation of a functioning “Continuous Quality Improvement” program, which will be made possible by a partnership with the Ford Motor Company” Lessons learned from such partnerships have been very useful and have been translated, at the institutional level, through a new round of program review for both academic and academic support units. Based on the highly successful process at Northwestern University, these reviews began in 2004. Administered through the Office of Academic Affairs, they are data-driven, analytic, issues-oriented reviews, completed in six- to nine-month periods and supplemented with an external review team assessment. In addition, the role of the Office of Institutional Research and Planning has been enhanced considerably. Data of various types are provided to the academic and academic support units on a regular basis for short-term and long-term planning purposes. This is discussed more fully with regard to Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future. And, as noted with regard to Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching, the specification of goals and objectives for academic programs, specification of how they are being achieved, and use of that information in curricular planning, is being implemented throughout the university. • “Preparing undergraduate students to become global citizens and developing additional opportunities for ‘study abroad’ experiences.” The university has been, and remains, committed to this recommendation. There is an “international” component to the general education curriculum and a growing number of students interested in undergraduate major programs with such an emphasis, notably in the interdisciplinary undergraduate major in international studies (almost 800 majors), and in programs in Social and Behavioral Sciences, Humanities, Education and Human Ecology, and Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, among others. In addition: there are six “area studies” centers; a well-known and respected Foreign Language Center; and the recently developed state-of-the-art World Media and Culture Center (Hagerty Hall). With regard to study abroad, participation has grown dramatically over the past decade. Approximately 1,800 students now study abroad annually (a threefold increase over the decade) of whom 85% are undergraduate students. Today 19% of undergraduate students study abroad during their career at the university—up from less that 10% a decade ago. The university president has suggested that this proportion should be significantly higher. The Office of International Affairs (OIA) reports to the executive vice president and provost and includes an International Education division. This office currently is undergoing leadership change. To help with that process, in January 2007, the university president established a university-wide International Programs Task Force charged with outlining a vision for the university in this area. Its deliberations will include the role of undergraduate educational opportunities. It will issue a progress report in May 2007.

12 INTRODUCTION MAJOR CHANGES SINCE THE 1997 RE-ACCREDITATION REVIEW The past 10 years have been characterized by dramatic institutional change. Through the terms of three university presidents—E. Gordon Gee (1990-98), William E. Kirwan (1998-2002), and Karen A. Holbrook (2002-2007)—and three provosts—Richard J. Sisson (1993-1998), Edward J. Ray (1998-2003), and Barbara R. Snyder (2003-2007)—the university has undertaken a set of institution-wide initiatives related to the internal goal of continuously improving, and thus strengthening, the various components of its academic mission. The initiatives have been shaped substantially by two major events. • In 2000, following an elaborate, yearlong, highly consultative process, the university established an Academic Plan. This plan has provided the framework for virtually all aspects of institutional planning and has become embedded within the culture of the university. The plan focuses on six strategies: • Build a world-class faculty. • Develop academic programs that define Ohio State as the nation’s leading public land-grant university. • Improve the quality of the teaching and learning environment. • Enhance and better serve the student body. • Create a more diverse university community. • Help build Ohio’s future. Each strategy has a set of supporting actions. “Strategic indicators” (metrics) for each component of the plan are produced and published annually for the institution and for each of its colleges. • In 2003, following more than five years of internal discussion,budget restructuring was implemented. Following two decades of variability in the state subsidy for higher education, including years with no budget increases (“flat” budgets) as well as years with budget decreases, the university responded with various “cost containment” (1986-87), “strategic planning” (1987-90), and “early retirement” initiatives (1985, 1988, 1991). Then discussions began to address, more fully, a rethinking of internal allocations of funds. The result was the establishment of a process that: • specified the academic colleges as the budget “centers” within the university; • rebased budgets to better reflect enrollment patterns (resulting in a reallocation of funds, for example, from selected professional and health sciences colleges to selected arts and sciences colleges); and then • established more detailed annual budgeting practices and procedures. This new approach has given considerable budgetary control to the 18 academic colleges in what is an already highly decentralized institution. The approach has also brought with it increased transparency in budget decision making at all levels, and has included monitoring on an annual basis by the central administration and the University Senate’s relevant committees.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 13 Together these two important initiatives, supported by enhanced use of the Office of Institutional Research and Planning, have shaped many of the activities that are highlighted throughout this report. Examples include: • With regard to the research mission and its related activities: continued efforts to focus the academic mission through “selective investment” and “targeted investment in excellence” programs; the creation, abolition, and alteration of selected academic units; a new round of regular academic and academic support program reviews; establishment of new categories of faculty (regular clinical-track faculty outside the health sciences, and research-track faculty); enhanced interdisciplinary work as evidenced by new centers, institutes, and academic programs; and, most notably perhaps, highly successful efforts to increase external research funding—all leading to improved national rankings for the university. • With regard to the instructional mission: the move to year-round “selective admissions” of undergraduate students that has raised dramatically the academic credentials of the freshman class; a wide array of efforts to strengthen the undergraduate experience, leading to substantial improvements in first-year retention and time to degree; and a detailed review of the general education curriculum. Undergraduate education will continue to receive careful attention. Now attention is turning to a parallel examination of graduate and professional education. • With regard to outreach: the establishment of the vice president for university outreach and the Office of University Outreach and Engagement to help coordinate and nurture ongoing activity and help identify institutional directions. • With regard to the regional campuses: a Presidential Commission on the Regional Campuses (2002) recommended tighter integration of these campuses with the Columbus campus in “systemic terms” and the need to confront longer-term issues such as programmatic expansion. These examples demonstrate the many ways this university has been involved in a decade of “continuous self-study” to enhance excellence in its academic mission, all within the framework of the Academic Plan and the new budgeting model. The remainder of this report organizes and analyzes such activities around the criteria for re-accreditation.

14 INTRODUCTION Selected Comparisons: A Statistical Summary of Then and Now 1997 2006

Students Enrollment (Columbus Campus) Undergraduate 35,647 38,749 Post-Baccalaureate Professional 2,724 3,256 Graduate 9,907 10,083 Diversity % Men 51.0% 51.0% % Women 49.0% 49.0% % Non-Ohio Residents 8.2% 10.4% % Students of Color 14.3% 14.8% % International Students 8.0% 7.0% Undergraduate Student Profile Average ACT Composite 23.9 26.3 Average SAT Combined 1132 1198 Cumulative % in 10% 26 43 Cumulative % in top 25% 57 80 First-Year Retention All Students 79.1% 92.0% Minority Students African American 70.0% 89.0% Hispanic 72.2% 89.0% Six-Year Graduation All Students 57.0% 71.0% Minority Students African American 40.6% 57.0% Hispanic 38.4% 57.0% Faculty and Staff* (FTE) Regular Faculty 2,920.6 3,008.5 Auxiliary Faculty 1,000.1 1,455.3 Research Faculty 37.3 Clinical Faculty 193.5 412.1 Administrative and Professional Staff 8,054.1 12,987.9 Civil Service 5,520.5 5,334.6 Student Employees 5,501.0 5,012.0 Financial Information Budget Total Revenue $1.61 billion $3.76 billion State Appropriations as a % of Revenue 26% 14% Student Fees as a % of Revenue 18% 18% Total Expenditures $1.59 billion $3.72 billion Research Expenditures $289 million $652 million Tuition and Fees Undergraduate $3,660 $8,406 Graduate $5,187 $9,177 Endowment $767.7 million $2.02 billion

Facilities *The 2006 staff totals include new staff Classroom Space (in square feet) 404,726 465,624 members from three additional hospitals Research Space (in square feet) 1,895,200 2,112,335 that are now part of the OSU Medical Center.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 15 The Self-Study Process Planning for the self-study process began in April 2004. The university president and executive vice president and provost met, reviewed the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC) revised criteria for accreditation, and initiated a process to be followed. The process was administered through the Office of Academic Affairs and began formally in 2005. A Faculty Fellow, Professor Stephanie Davidson (Department of Speech and Hearing Science) was appointed to oversee activities. She led a five-member coordinating team, appointed to facilitate data collection and report preparation, that met weekly. She also led a 15-member steering committee, representing a broad cross section of faculty, staff, students, and administrators, that was appointed and met approximately monthly from January through September 2006, and then approximately biweekly through March 2007. It served to: • provide an avenue of communication between the coordinating team and constituents across the university (faculty, staff, students, administrators); • review and provide comment on the self-study goals and process, and on the documentation proposed to demonstrate compliance with the criteria for accreditation; and • evaluate and provide suggested revisions to drafts of the self-study report. The committee proposed that the goal was to produce a self-study report that would: • present evidence of the university’s compliance with all of the Higher Learning Commission’s criteria; • provide a comprehensive, objective, and evidence-based review of the university’s current strengths and challenges and, where appropriate, suggest next steps; and • contribute valuable information to the university’s ongoing planning and improvement processes. It was decided to organize the re-accreditation self-study into two main parts—one focusing on the university’s compliance with the HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation, and another focusing on a special emphasis on graduate and post-baccalaureate professional education—a topic being addressed by two university-wide committees. In this way, the institution was able to align the re-accreditation process with an important topical matter, and in so doing engage the university community in a discussion of the topic. A College Special Emphasis Liaison Committee was appointed in spring 2006 to facilitate each academic college’s participation in the Special Emphasis. This committee included one or two faculty from each college, appointed by the dean. The college liaisons led the process at the local academic levels and reported their results to the steering committee. Professor W. Randy Smith, vice provost for academic programs, Office of Academic Affairs, was involved throughout the process, as member of both the coordinating team and the steering committee, and interacted regularly with the university’s liaison at HLC.

16 INTRODUCTION Making the Case for Accreditation Through the self-study process, Ohio State has gained a better understanding of its strengths and its opportunities for improvement. This report provides a thorough and accurate overview that: • provides evidence of the university’s compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation and the associated Core Components; • demonstrates the many ways that Ohio State is future-oriented, learning- focused, connected, and distinctive; and • identifies opportunities for improvement related to the Criteria for Accreditation and graduate and post-baccalaureate professional education. We believe we meet the Commission’s requirements for re-accreditation and respectfully request re-accreditation for a 10-year period.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 17

Chapter Two Criterion One: Mission and Integrity Criterion Two: Preparing for the Future

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 19 The Ohio State University uses its mission and planning activities to ensure that it constantly moves toward its overarching goal of becoming one of the world’s truly great universities. Over the past decade, a new Academic Plan and a new budgeting model were developed and implemented. They provide the foundation for much that we do; therefore, Criterion One and Criterion Two are intricately linked at the university and presented together in this chapter.

20 CRITERIA ONE AND TWO SETTING THE STAGE (Core Component 1a) “Our highest priority at Ohio State is to fulfill our promise to our students— undergraduate, graduate, and professional—through teaching and learning, research and scholarship, and service and engagement, as defined in our Academic Plan. Our promise to them is to be recognized as one of the world’s great public research and teaching universities to benefit our state and the nation.” State of the University Address Delivered by Dr. Karen A. Holbrook President, The Ohio State University September 29, 2005

In 2000, following a highly consultative process led by then-President William E. Kirwan, the Board of Trustees approved the Academic Plan. Its development and implementation represent a significant step since the 1997 re-accreditation. It is a unique document that unites Ohio State’s purpose, core values, and vision for the future with a strategic plan directed toward achieving our overarching goal of becoming one of the world’s truly great universities. This vision stands today as the guiding conceptual framework for the strategies and initiatives outlined in the Academic Plan itself. It also reflects the values and aspirations of a broad cross section of the university community and its external constituencies.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 21 University Vision Purpose To advance the well-being of the people of Ohio and the global community through the creation and dissemination of knowledge.

Core Values • Pursue knowledge for its own sake. • Ignite in our students a lifelong love of learning. • Produce discoveries that make the world a better place. • Celebrate and learn from our diversity. • Open the world to our students.

Overarching Goal The Ohio State University will be among the world’s truly great universities.

Future The Ohio State University will be recognized worldwide for the quality and impact of its research, teaching, and service. Our students will be able to learn and to advance knowledge in all areas. As a 21st-century land-grant university, The Ohio State University will set the standard for the creation and dissemination of knowledge in service to its communities, state, nation, and the world. Our faculty, students, and staff will be among the best in the nation. Academic excellence will be enriched by an environment that mirrors the diverse world in which we live. Within this environment, we will come to value the differences in one another along with the similarities, and to ap- preciate that the human condition is best served through understanding, acceptance, and mutual respect. Throughout the learning process, our faculty and staff will find the highest levels of fulfillment and satisfaction as they collaborate to educate and support a student body recognized for its scholarship and integrity. Students will have the opportunity to learn on our campuses or from locations around the world through the innovative use of technology. The quality of our physical facilities and grounds will be consistent with our world-class status. Extracurricular activities will support the personal growth of all members of our community. Our intercollegiate athletic programs will routinely rank among the elite few.

22 CRITERIA ONE AND TWO Graduation rates for all students will compare favorably with the nation’s best public universities. Most of all, our graduates will be among the most sought after by the world’s best employers and will become leaders in their communities and accomplished professionals in their chosen work. We will lead Ohio to a dynamic knowledge economy, and our research, widely known for its multidisciplinary programs, will help solve the most challenging social, cultural, technical, and health-related problems. The excellence of our programs will be recognized by the highest levels of public and private support. As a result, The Ohio State University will earn an intensity of alumni loyalty and of public esteem unsurpassed by any other university.

Six Strategies of the Academic Plan • Build a world-class faculty. • Develop academic programs that define Ohio State as the nation’s leading public land-grant university. • Improve the quality of the teaching and learning environment. • Enhance and better serve the student body. • Create a more diverse university community. • Help build Ohio’s future.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 23 The original document specified a series of “supporting initiatives” that could be accomplished during the first three to five years of the 10-year plan. In 2002, President Karen A. Holbrook embraced the plan and its outcomes-based approach and further developed the plan by working with university leadership to specify a Leadership Agenda. This agenda prioritized actions and focused on those most likely to help Ohio State reach its goals. As we move into the second five years of the plan, President Holbrook identified three areas of priority focus: 1) providing a distinctive education for our students; 2) facilitating cutting-edge interdisciplinary research; and 3) supporting 21st-century outreach and engagement. Working within the context of the plan and areas of priority focus, the executive vice president and provost defined a set of annual academic priorities and pursued strategic initiatives to drive progress. Using the 2006 academic priorities as an example, Figure 1 illustrates the intentional connection between the Academic Plan, the Leadership Agenda, and our academic priorities. As shown, the Academic Plan serves as the driving force behind the university’s actions. The president’s Leadership Agenda and the university’s academic priorities flow from (red arrows) and support (blue arrows) the plan. As an example, one strategy is to “develop academic programs that define Ohio State as the nation’s leading public land-grant university.” This strategy is supported by the Leadership Agenda’s priority to “provide distinctive educational experiences and opportunities for students.” This, in turn, is supported by a specific academic priority for 2006 to “complete a university- wide review of undergraduate education.”

Academic Plan ÍÍ ÈÈ

Leadership Agenda Focus Areas • Distinctive education experience and opportunities for students • Cutting-edge interdisciplinary research for long- and short-term societal benefit • Outreach and engagement initiatives that connect areas of academic excellence with societal need ÍÍ ÈÈ

Academic Priorities • University-wide review of undergraduate education • Alignment of funding with quality of graduate education • Targeted Investments in Excellence

Figure 1. Relationship between the Academic Plan, the Leadership Agenda focus areas, and academic priorities

24 CRITERIA ONE AND TWO UNDERSTANDING, VALUING, AND PURSUING OUR MISSION (Core Component 1c) “The aims of our Academic Plan all point to one overarching goal: we want Ohio State to be the premier public land-grant research university in the nation.” State of Academic Affairs Address Delivered by Ms. Barbara Snyder Executive Vice President and Provost January 12, 2006

The Academic Plan is readily available to both internal and external constituent groups and is prominently displayed in numerous sections of the Ohio State web site (home page for Academics, Research, Outreach, and Faculty/Staff.) As seen in the various quotations throughout this document, the plan is routinely acknowledged in speeches by the president, the executive vice president and provost, and others in leadership positions. The Academic Plan has also achieved prominence due to its importance to the campus-wide benchmarking and strategic planning process. The plan includes a candid acknowledgement of the university’s current position among other large, public institutions and identifies a set of nine “aspirational” peers, or benchmark institutions. These institutions are public, comprehensive research universities ranked higher than Ohio State academically, similarly structured, and are the institutions whose successes we most want to emulate. This set of benchmark universities is the basis for comparison data reported in the Academic Plan Scorecard and Report on Strategic Indicators. Annually, each of the 18 colleges is asked to measure and report contributions to meeting the goals of the Academic Plan. These contributions are captured by the College Academic Quality Indicators (Figure 2). Colleges not only report on common indicators, such as faculty honors and awards, but they also report on Academic Plan agreed upon unique indicators for the college. For instance, the Scorecard College of the Arts reports on faculty performances and exhibits as a unique indicator for “build a world-class faculty” and on the number of its public events as a unique indicator for “help build Ohio’s future.” The College of Dentistry, on the other hand, College Academic uses the amount of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding Academic Quality Support Unit as one of its unique indicators for “build a world-class faculty” Indicators Indicators and the number of patient visits to its clinic as a unique indicator for “help build Ohio’s future.” The use of specialized indicators allows each college’s faculty to understand that they contribute to the Academic Plan in distinctive ways. Figure 2. “College Academic Quality Indicators” and Academic support units (such as Student Affairs, Student “Academic Support Unit Indicators” provide the informa- Financial Aid, University Registrar) also report on their tion for the “Academic Plan Scorecard” contributions to the Academic Plan as captured by the Academic Support Unit Indicators (Figure 2). Business and Finance, for instance, measures the percentage

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 25 Physical Facilities vehicles of undergraduates who feel safe on campus, and Student Affairs measures student satisfaction with life in the residence halls. As is the case with the unique indicators have the statement, “Partners used in each college, the Academic Support Unit Indicators demonstrate to staff across the university their unique contribution to the goals of the plan. in Academic Excellence” The university has experienced considerable success in each of the components of the Academic Plan. Indeed, those components align well with the Higher Learning painted on their trucks—this Commission’s Core Criteria and examples of success are discussed in each section of this report and are reflected in the Academic Plan Scorecard. is one example of the way Because of the Academic Plan’s ubiquitous presence in all planning and budgetary activities for the colleges and support units, faculty, staff, and students in positions of in which support units leadership across the university understand the plan and consistently use it for strategic planning and decision making. Specific examples are detailed below. demonstrate an awareness The effect on faculty of the visibility of the Academic Plan on the web site and in speeches is not directly known, but the 2004-2005 HERI Faculty Survey indicated that of the university’s mission 86.3 percent of faculty felt that the institution’s national image was an issue “of high or highest priority”—the highest percentage assigned to any issue. This finding suggests that most faculty are aware of Ohio State’s goal to become the nation’s premier land- and are able to connect with grant university. As a result of the self-study, we recognize that we need to learn more about staff and student awareness of the plan, and the university needs to continue and see their roles within the efforts to make staff and students better aware of the plan. university. RECOGNIZING, RESPECTING, AND APPRECIATING DIVERSITY: CREATING A MORE DIVERSE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY (Core Component 1b) “I’ve said often that the most important part of a university education for our students, more than simply building intellectual capacity or training them for a career in their chosen field, is to help prepare them for the world outside of our campus walls. Ohio State’s motto is ‘Education for Citizenship’ in our community, state, nation, and the world, and to be that kind of citizen our university must offer a learning environment that mirrors the diverse, global world in which we live.” Karen A. Holbrook, President 26 CRITERIA ONE AND TWO “Scientists rightly argue that we must protect natural resources like the world’s rain forests because their rich and largely unexplored biodiversity holds great promise for medical advances. In a similar way, I believe that we need to protect the rich social diversity of our species and act on the assumption that every culture and every individual has, or may have, important gifts that can benefit us all. We as educators have the professional duty to seek out their gifts and talents wherever they can be found and Objectives of the to nurture them.” Diversity Action Plan • Create a supportive environment Mac Stewart, Vice Provost and Chief Diversity Officer that is welcoming for all individuals. The Diversity Plan • Recruit and retain greater numbers of women and Diversity has long been a focal point and a priority at the university, as well as a source minorities into faculty, staff, of pride given the university’s role in enhancing diversity among faculty, staff, and and administrative positions students. In January 1999, the president and executive vice president and provost (including deans, chairs, and charged a committee of administrators, faculty, and staff to develop an action plan to vice presidents). assist Ohio State in achieving its goals related to diversity. The work of that committee • Recruit, retain, and graduate led to the development of the 2000 Ohio State Diversity Action Plan, created in close greater numbers of ethnic coordination with the Academic Plan. minority students. The Diversity Plan articulates a set of six objectives and a set of strategies for achieving • Provide incentives to academic each objective. The plan is updated annually by the university’s Diversity Council, a and academic support units for group appointed by the president. Each year, all academic and vice presidential units developing models of excellence provide information regarding progress made in meeting the goals of the plan. This for increasing diversity. information is analyzed by the Diversity Council, which issues a report1 of its findings to the university community. • Collect and organize data to systematically and effectively Through the efforts of the university’s Diversity Council and its partners, significant assess progress and to align/ progress has been made. Tangible evidence of this progress can be seen in the realign programs intended to creation and expansion of environments that celebrate and support diversity such as enhance diversity. the Women’s Place, the Multicultural Center, and the Bell Resource Center on the African American Male, and in the increasing research and scholarship devoted to • Assign accountability to achieve issues of diversity through programs such as the President’s and Provost’s Diversity the progress envisioned in this Lecture Series and through the creation of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race action plan. and Ethnicity. 1 Council on Diversity Annual Reports

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 27 One of the many positive Further evidence of Ohio State’s commitment to diversity can be found in its ongoing efforts to track progress and outcomes. A detailed assessment of diversity planning trajectories that can be and progress across colleges is completed annually and reported in the Council for Diversity’s Annual Reports—see, for example, the reports for 2005 and 2006. The Academic Plan also mandates ongoing tracking and assessment of progress in seen in the scorecard is the creating a diverse university community and environment via strategic indicators for faculty, staff, and students. A 2000 to 2006 comparison of the Academic Plan Strategic improvement in first- to Indicators is shown in Figure 3. As can be seen, the scorecard tracks a number of diversity outcomes, such as the percentage of minority faculty, staff, and students on second-year persistence (or campus, as well as graduation rates for minority students. freshman retention rate) among African Americans; this figure has climbed from 74% to 88% (based on the 1998 to 2005 cohorts).

Strategy Strategic indicator Ohio State Benchmark Average Change in Gap 2000 2006 2000 2006 Build a World-Class Faculty Scorecard Scorecard Scorecard Scorecard 1. Academic Honors and Awards (1999 vs 2005) 29 61 61.8 85.9 -7.9 2. Market Share of Publications (1996-98 vs 2002-2004) 0.41 0.41 0.50 0.48 -0.02 3. Market Share of Citations (1996-98 vs 2002-2004) 0.52 0.63 0.81 0.82 -0.1 4. Market Share of Federal Research Dollars (1998 vs 2004) 0.82 1.04 1.48 1.42 -0.28 5. Average Faculty Compensation (FY 2000 vs FY2006) $70,354 $89,162 $72,330 $90,595 ($543)

Define Ohio State as the Leading Public Land-Grant University

1. U.S. News Academic Reputation Score (1999 vs 2006) 3.8 3.7 4.1 4 0.02 2. U.S. News Academic Ph.D. programs among the Top 25 (1999 vs 2006) 4 4 8.4 9.3 0.9 3. U.S. News Professional programs among the Top 25 (1999 vs 2006) 7 7 7.3 6.9 -0.4 4. U.S. News Professional College Ph.D. Programs/Subdisciplines among the Top 25 (2006) 17 18.4 5. NRC Academic Ph.D. programs among the top 25% (1992) 9 9 20 20 NC Figure 3. The Academic Plan Scorecard—2000 to 2006

28 CRITERIA ONE AND TWO Strategy Strategic indicator Ohio State Benchmark Average Change in Gap

2000 2006 2000 2006 Improve the Quality of the Teaching and Learning Environment Scorecard Scorecard Scorecard Scorecard 1. % of Faculty Satisfied Overall (1999 vs 2005) 71.1 79.3 73.2 77.1 -4.3 2. % of Students Satisfied with Instruction and Courses (1998**) 58 65 3. % of Students Satisfied with Campus Facilities (1998**) 62 75 4. % of Seniors Satisfied with Quality of Educational Experience (2004) 80 86 5. % of Seniors Satisfied with Class Size (2004) 75 79 6. % of Seniors Satisfied with Quality of Instruction (2004) 81 88 7. % of Seniors Satisfied with Relationships with Faculty (2004) 70 78

Enhance and Better Serve the Student Body

1. % of Freshmen in the Top 10% of H.S. Class (1999 vs 2005) 29 39 50 60.9 0.9 2. Freshman Retention Rate (1998 vs 2004 cohorts) 81 90 89 91.7 -6.3 3. Six-year Graduation Rate (1993 vs 1999 cohorts) 56 68 70 76.4 -5.6 4. Four-year Graduation Rate (1995 vs 2001 cohorts) 23 40 40 52 -5 5. Average GMAT score for M.B.A. students (1999 vs 2005) 638 662 644 665 -3 6. Average LSAT range for Law students (1999 vs 2005) 153-160 158-164 157-163 160-165 0

7. Average GRE verbal score for graduate students (1998 vs 2005)* 527 520 496 493 4 8. Average GRE quantitative score for graduate students (1998 vs 2005)* 628 644 639 642 -13 Not comparable; 9. Average GRE analytic/writing score for graduate students (1998 vs 2005)* 610 63 595 64 test change 10. % of Students Satisfied with Student Support Services (1998**) 47 51 11. % of Seniors Satisfied with Quality of Academic Advising (2004) 63 64

Create a Diverse University Community

1. % of Women Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty (1997 vs 2005) 27.4 28.5 23.2 27.9 3.6 2. % of African American, Hispanic, and Native American Tenured/ Tenure-Track Faculty (1997 vs 2005) 5.2 6.3 5.8 7 0.1 3. % of Minority Staff (1997 vs 2005) 18.7 19.2 19.8 21.6 1.3 4. % of African American and Hispanic Students (1998 vs 2005) 10 11 11.7 12 -0.7 5. African American Freshmen Retention Rate (1998 vs 2005) 74 88 86 88 -12 6. Hispanic Freshmen Retention Rate (1998 vs 2005) 74 87 86 87.7 -11.3 7. African American 6-Year Graduation Rate (1998 vs 2005) 37 55 49 59.6 -7.4 8. Hispanic 6-Year Graduation Rate (1998 vs 2005) 49 62 56 65.7 -3.3

Help Build Ohio’s Future

1. Number of Invention Disclosures (1998 vs 2004) 75 161 163 202 -47 2. Number of Patent Applications (1998 vs 2004) 33 52 124 82 -61 3. Number of Patents Awarded (1998 vs 2004) 24 26 40 50 8 4. Number of License/Options Executed (1998 vs 2004) 16 30 56 63 -7 5. Number of Start Up Companies (1998 vs 2004) 0 6 5 4 -7 6. Revenue from Income Generating Licenses (1998 vs 2004) $1.8 M $0.6 mil $7.3M $17.5 mil $11.4M Figure 3 (continued). The Academic Plan Scorecard—2000 to 2006

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 29 Diversity in the Student Body. Progress on diversity is evaluated by comparisons with our designated benchmark universities (Figure 4). With regard to percentage of minority students, we place 7th among the 10 institutions1. This appears to be due to relatively low enrollments of Asian and Hispanic students. Ohio State does very well in the enrollment of African American students. A closer examination of the data, however, demonstrates that the university compares favorably to its Midwest benchmarks, where the proportion of Asian and Hispanic students is lower Figure 4. A comparison of student diversity at Ohio State and student diversity than in the southern and western states at the benchmarks. ( Figure 5). Ohio State places 2nd among the 10 institutions1 using this comparison. One significant area of strength is in the number of Ph.D.s granted to minority students—Ohio State is routinely recognized as one of the top 10 institutions in the number of degrees awarded to minorities. Diversity in the Faculty and Administrative Ranks. The proportion of women faculty has remained relatively constant over the past six years. It currently stands at 28.5%. We compare favorably with our benchmarks in this category; only two of our comparison institutions have a higher percentage of women faculty members than does Ohio State1.

Figure 5. A comparison of the Student Diversity Index at Ohio State and the Student Diversity Index at the benchmarks.

1 Data provided by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning

30 CRITERIA ONE AND TWO The proportion of minority faculty has increased slightly over the past six years and currently stands at 16.9%. We are Faculty Diversity 2005: Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty slightly above the benchmark average Gender Distribution (16.1%) and have moved from 5th place 80.0% 74.3% 73.8% (in 2003) to 4th place (in 2005) among the 72.5% 72.4% 72.1% 71.9% 71.6% 71.5% 70.4% 69.9% 70.0% .1 institutions 60.0% 50.0% Ohio State is committed to further 40.0% 29.6% 30.1% 26.2% 27.5% 27.6% 27.9% 28.1% 28.4% 28.5% improvements in the recruitment and 30.0% 25.7% retention of women and minority faculty 20.0% 10.0% and has committed resources to examine 0.0% the issue and recommend next steps for UCLA ILL Texas Wisc PSU Mich Minn OSU Ariz Wash moving forward ( Faculty Cohort Project Men Women and the Report of the Work Group on Flexible Workloads for Tenure Track Figure 6. A comparison of the faculty gender distribution at Ohio State and the Faculty). faculty gender distribution at the benchmarks. Diversity among Staff Members. Staff diversity is broken into several categories—those in executive or administrative, clerical, other professional, skilled crafts, technical or paraprofessional, and service positions (Figure 8). Ohio State has a lower percentage of minority staff than the benchmark mean in every category except service positions, where the percentage is higher1.

Figure 7. A comparison of student diversity at Ohio State and student diversity at the benchmarks.

1 Data provided by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 31 Staff Diversity 2001-2005 : Percent of Minorities in Clerical Positions Staff Diversity 2001-2005 : Percent of Minorities in Clerical Positions Staff DiversityStaff Diversity 2001-2005 2001-2005 : Percent : Percent of Minorities of Minorities in Service in Service Positions Positions The recruitment, retention, and

100 100 100 100 advancement of women and minori